What if all of the services combined? Good or Bad?

Question

Would there be a economical impact, political impact, and even foreign impact.

and if this combination happened how would you conduct it?

How would the service be designed

ex 3 different branches in the service(land, air, sea)

How would the budget be split, what would you try to change and would you try to expand the amount of people serving or decrease.

Would you copy Israel and make a mandatory two year service to the country.

Please be very specific.

Thank you

Answer 1

You could not do that with a military like the US has. Each service has vastly different roles, traditions, and ways that it looks at a battle. If you were to combine the services can you imagine how out of touch an General who came up thru the officer ranks leading infantry grunts would be when confronted with ASW, resupply at sea, and strategic bombing campaigns would be. Or take an Admiral who spent his time in the Silent Service (Submarines), he will have no idea about the needs of a tank division. If you were to have just one branch the senior ranking military officer would need to know all of that. In other words rather than getting experts like you do with the Joint Chiefs, you would get a jack of all trades master of none senior officer corps. Even at the NCO level how do you come up with a course like WLC which is designed to teach to new NCO's what they need to lead. If you combine what currently what each branch expects of its NCO's in to a single NCO'ES school it would be well over a year long just for basic level NCO skills. Currently WLC (PLDC) takes one month.

In order for what you propose to work a nation could have no greater ambitions than to be a regional power. As such the second America decided to go down this road, our foreign policy would have to change over night. A military force would have to be geared towards an overall tactical goal rather than a strategic one. For example the air component could not have strategic capbility as that does not mesh very well in the overall scope of things. So a nations air arm would mostly be designed to defend its air space, provide additional air assets to the naval capability, and provide around the clock air support to ground forces. Naval units would be more like a much more heavily armed coast guard as if the services were to be combined the days of having carrier groups all over the world would end. As would the ability to resupply ships thousands of miles from home ports. As such naval capbilities would be limited to providing additional fire support where/when they can to ground forces, if an enemy were to attack a nation, screen ground troops from an enemy amphibious assault, defend the coastline,  launch raids along an enemy coast line, provide more air defense options, and ground attack ability to the ground and air arms. It is also possible that a naval arms radar capibilities could be meshed with the air arms to provide greater cordination and striking power. As it is stating ships guns would act more like a traditional artillary battery along the nations own coast.  Now for the Army, or ground components. Gone are first strike forces in their current role, such as the Marines and Airborne Forces. Marine forces would have the job of raiding a neighbors coast line, threatening their flanks, etc. Airborne troops rather than being an any where in the world in 18 hours would act more as QRF to anywhere in the nation. Overall the ground components job would be to secure naval and air installations, be able to throw back any enemy ground force.

Answer 2

Wow.

the service is split into 4 branches.

this is... a stupid question.

Answer 3

it can't work because each service has individual missions and budgets.